The Social-Democratic proletariat of Russia, and particularly of
St. Petersburg, is confronted with the extremely important problem of how to
conduct the immediate political campaign in relation to the State Duma. It goes
without saying that the united Social-Democratic Party can discuss this question
of the immediate campaign only within the framework of the
resolution of the Unity Congress.

The St. Petersburg Social-Democratic proletariat has two plans of
campaign before it: one in the resolution of the Central Committee, and the
other in the resolution of the St. Petersburg Committee. These two
resolutions[1]
have already been published in Vperyod (No. 2),[2]
and now we propose to discuss the material difference between them. The
main point in the Central Committee’s resolution reads:
“We will support the Duma in all the steps it takes towards overthrowing
the present Ministry and substituting for it a Ministry appointed by the Duma,
for we see in such a change favourable conditions for the convocation of a
constituent assembly.” The resolution of the St. Petersburg Committee says nothing
about supporting such a demand; it concentrates on the government’s outrageous
behaviour, on the impotence of the Duma, on the need for the Trudovik Group to
appeal to the people, on the inevitability of a new and joint struggle by the
workers and peasants.

Thus the main point at issue is whether or not we should support the steps of
the Duma towards the formation of a Cadet Ministry. The Central Committee’s
resolution is vague on this point, and talks about a “Ministry appointed
by the Duma”. But everybody knows, and the whole liberal-bourgeois press
is emphasising it, that what is actually being discussed is the appointment by
the supreme authority of a Ministry acceptable to the Duma, that is to say, a
Cadet Ministry. And this is the only construction that the broad masses of the
working class can put upon the Central Committee’s resolution.

Can the Social-Democratic proletariat support the demand that the supreme
authority should appoint a Cadet Ministry? No, it cannot. A Cadet Ministry can
be appointed only as the result of a deal between the autocracy and the
liberal bourgeoisie against the socialist workers and the revolutionary
peasantry. The Social-Democrats will, of course, take the utmost advantage of
the new situation that would be created by such a deal. They will carefully
consider their tactics if this deal even temporarily creates better conditions for
the struggle for freedom and for socialism. We will do all we can to turn even
this counter-revolutionary deal to the advantage of the revolution. But we
cannot support a deal between the bourgeoisie and the
bureaucrats concluded behind the backs of the people. To call upon
the people, or the proletariat, to support such a deal would only be corrupting
their minds, concealing from them the truth about the nature of this
deal, about the dangers it involves, and about the fact that the
bourgeoisie and the bureaucracy want thereby to make more difficult the
convocation of a constituent assembly.

We must call upon the workers and peasants not to sup port deals, but to
fight. Only serious preparations for a fight can really weaken the
autocracy; a fight alone can guarantee that any step the autocracy or
the bourgeoisie take will really benefit the revolution. The Central Committee’s
resolution is mistaken. The class-conscious Social-Democratic workers
cannot accept it.

Now for the second question. Is it not our duty to accept this resolution in the
name of discipline and of submission to the Congress? Read the resolution on the
State Duma adopted by the Unity Congress; you will find nothing in it to suggest
that we must support the demand for the formation of a Cadet Ministry. It does
not contain a single word about “supporting” the Duma at
all. The following is the
full text of that part of the Congress resolution which
defines our attitude to the Duma itself: “The
Social-Democratic Party must
(1) systematically utilise all the
conflicts that arise between the government and the Duma, as well as in the
Duma itself, for the purpose of expanding and deepening the revolutionary
movement, and with this end in view it must
(a) strive to expand and
intensify these conflicts to such limits as will enable them to be
used as the starting-point for broad mass movements for the
overthrow of the present political system;
(b) strive in every case
to link the political tasks of the movement with the social and economic
demands of the masses of workers and peasants;
(c) by means of extensive
agitation among the masses of the people in favour of revolutionary
demands to be presented to the State Duma—organise outside
pressure upon the Duma with the object of revolutionising
it.
(2) Intervene in such a way as to make these growing conflicts
(a) reveal to the masses the inconsistency of all the bourgeois parties in
the Duma that claim to express the will of the people, and
(b) help the
broad masses (the proletariat, the peasantry, and the town petty
bourgeoisie) to realise that the Duma is utterly useless as a
representative body, and that it is necessary to convene a national
constituent assembly”, etc.

From the passages we have underlined, it is evident that the Central Committee’s
resolution on supporting the demand for a Cadet Ministry, far from being in
harmony with the Congress resolution, actually contradicts it. The
demand for a Cadet Ministry is not a revolutionary demand. It
serves to allay and obscure the conflicts with the Duma, and
in the Duma; it leaves out the question of the uselessness of the Duma, etc.,
etc. We will add that the Congress resolution says nothing about
“supporting” the Duma; it speaks only of “exerting
pressure”, “utilising” and “intervening”.

The inference is obvious. The Central Committee has absolutely no right
to call upon the Party organisations to accept its resolution in favour of
supporting the demand for a Cadet Ministry. It is the duty of every
Party member to take an absolutely independent and critical stand on this
question and to declare for the resolution that in his opinion more
correctly solves the problem within the framework of the decisions of the
Unity Congress. The St. Petersburg
worker Social-Democrats know that the whole Party organisation is now built on a
democratic basis.. This means that all the Party members take
part in the election of officials, committee members, and so forth, that
all the Party members discuss and decide questions concerning
the political campaigns of the proletariat, and that all the Party
members determine the line of tactics of the Party organisations.

We are sure that this will be the attitude of the St. Peters burg
Social-Democratic proletariat on the present issue:
that it will discuss it earnestly and thoroughly, ’from every angle and decide
for itself whether or not the demand for a Cadet Ministry should be
supported.

The St. Petersburg workers will not allow themselves to be diverted from their
right, from their Social-Democratic and Party duty by any
sophistry, that is to say, by any obviously fallacious arguments. We will very
briefly mention these sophistries. L. Martov in Kuryer (No. 13) says:
in the name of discipline, do not disorganise the Central Committee’s political
campaign. This is sophistry. Discipline does not demand that a Party member
should blindly subscribe to all the resolutions drafted by the Central
Committee. There is no rule anywhere that compels a Party organisation to
forego its right to have an opinion of its own and to become a mere
subscriber to the Central Committee’s resolutions. L. Martov says: the
Mensheviks submitted in the case of the boycott, now it is for you to
submit. This is sophistry. We all submitted to the decisions of the
Congress. Not one of us called for opposition to participation in the Duma
elections and to the formation of a Social-Democratic parliamentary
group. Conforming with the decision of the Congress, we submitted, we gave up
the boycott. But we have a right and duty to oppose, within the framework
of the Congress decisions, support for a Cadet Ministry, which no
Congress has decreed. L. Martov evades the whole issue with awful words and
insinuations about disorganisers: but he does not say a word about whether the
St. Petersburg Committee resolution contradicts the Congress decision. He says
nothing about the rights of the opposition, that is, about the right of
any Party organisation, within the bounds of the will of the
Congress, to question
the tactics of the Central Committee and to correct its deviations and
mistakes. Therefore we will calmly reply to Martov that those are
disorganisers who violate the legitimate rights of the Party
organisations.

We will calmly point to the fact that even Mensheviks (see Comrade
Vlasov’s[3]
letter to the editor elsewhere in this issue) disagree with
the proposal to support a Cadet Ministry. Even Comrade Ryanshev, in
Kuryer, No. 13, calls upon “the Workers’ and Trudovik
Groups” to “fight with all their might” against the
Cadets’ Freedom of Assembly Bill, that is to say, he proposes purely
Bolshevik tactics, which preclude support for a Ministry
consisting of these same Cadets.

When the Vyborg District Committee proposes that a general city conference be
called for which the delegates are to be elected “irrespective of faction,
i.e., without any discussion”—without discussing the point at
issue! !—the St. Petersburg Social-Democratic workers can, of course, only
laugh at them for their proposal. Class-conscious workers will never decide an
important question without discussion. Neither complaints about
“sharp language” in discussion, nor L. Martov’s wailings about
certain harsh words that have offended him, nor threats of a split uttered by
him, or anybody else, will prevent the workers from settling the question by
themselves. To threaten a split, to provoke a split, is a trick unworthy of
a Social-Democrat, and can only give pleasure to the bourgeoisie (see
Duma, No. 29). The workers will by a majority vote decide
whether or not a Cadet Ministry should be supported. And they will see to it
that nobody, not even the Central Committee, dares to thwart the decisions
they arrive at absolutely freely, independently and legitimately, on
the basis of the decisions of the Unity Congress.

Notes

[2]Vperyod (Forward)—a legal Bolshevik daily
published in St. Petersburg from May 26 (June 8), 1906 onwards, instead of the
newspaper Volna, closed by the government. Lenin played the leading role in the
daily. Among the contributors were M. S. Olminsky, V. V. Vorovsky and
A. V. Lunacharsky. The paper was persecuted by the police; it was closed with
issue No. 17 on June 14 (27), 1906, and was succeeded by the Bolshevik
Ekho.

The “Resolution (II) of the St. Petersburg Committee of the
R.S.D.L.P.” appeared in Vperyod in abridged form.